Refund my SC when you change a weapon.

Nobody on the refund side is arguing that SOE is outside their TOS on this adjustment.

However, their TOS does not specify that those disgruntled customers have to keep giving them money either. When you run an ongoing product like this it's in your best interest to not bait and switch your customers, because they'll quickly stop being your customers.


D3 has a little more leeway because they sold a box and just taxed player AH trades. There's a lot less at stake there if people suddenly decide they don't want to play anymore.

Where does it say that it should be able to fire without a missile lock? Nowhere. You assumed it said it and got called out.

You sir, might be mentally challenged.

What an intelligent and well-written rebuttal. I am stunned by this gripping display of tact. This post, my dear friends,should be seen as an example of the standard by which all future discourse should be conducted.

Bravo, good sir.

Have I personally insulted you in some way?

When you respond with personal attacks during an argument it just makes your position look weak.

If you have enough money to blow on a FREE TO PLAY game for an item that you can unlock just by playing, you have no right to complain if it's balanced in a patch.

Yeah this was a joke. They apparently arent listening to any of these posts so maybe they will listen when all the people like you and me who have spent 50$ or 100$ on this game no longer spend anything.

Av / G2a was the last purchase I will EVER make in this game until they take the launchers back to the way they were or until they refund what we spent on a completely different weapon in certs/station cash.

They can ignore their player base on these forums, but they cant ignore the numbers. If everyone quit buying and made it VERY clear this is the reason why they would have no choice but to dump the "bait and switch" program, do what is right by their customers and abonden shoddy business practices like this.

Nope. D3 did a "bait and switch" too. Also, they had in their agreement that you had to click YES to that items will change and no money will be refunded so caveat emptor. In fact, the whining was SO HARD that they had to make a "Warning: Item stats may change over time" everytime you tried to bid on something.

As I understand it, fire modes are mutually exclusive. You cannot be in one fire mode while also being in another. The Shrike has "Single Shot". The Hawk and Crow have "Single Shot" and "Lock On". As far as I know, the firing modes mean the same thing no matter the gun. So, the Hawk and Crow are advertised as having a Lock On mode, and a non-Lock On mode. When trialed, they also perform as having such.

I am demanding a refund on my SC purchases where they change the basic functionality of a weapon (I dont mind balance tweeks, but I'm not standing for changes to what it said it would do when I bought it)

Under the UK Sale of Goods Act 1979 goods must be:

• as described,
• of satisfactory quality, and
• fit for purpose

The AA and AV launchers when purchases specified a dumb fire mode. This is no longer the case, and therefore the goods I have been provided with are not (i) as described, or (ii) of satisfactory quality, or (iii) fit for purpose. I therefore see this as a clear breach of the description made a point of sale.
No EULA can deprive me of my statutory rights, it is impossible for me to sign these away in any circumstance. And whilst there is a questsion of whether electronic items ingame constiute "goods" there have been several recent legal cases which support this view.

I dont think it unreasonable that where SOE change an item someone has bought for real money, then they get a refund and get to choose if that item as changed is one they would have spent money on.


I have made such a request of SOE, and given them 7 days to respond. Failure to do so will result in a complaint to trading standards in the first place, and possible further action if the matter is not resolved to my satisfaction.

No, they didn't.

yes they did. And even were they not to, the trial allowed you to use them in that way, giving the purchaser a reasonable expectation that the product they purchased on the basis of that trial would perform in the same way.

I have no objection to balance tweeks, ie, changed in dmg, rate of fire and so on, as basic functionality remains the same. However where functionality changes I think a refund to give the buyer the option to re-purchases is not unreasonable.

Burden of proof is on you. Been playing this game since late beta and I do not recall, since release, their in-game description stating that they have a dumb-fire mode.

Unless it was agreed to in writing, it doesn't matter. The weapon was never advertised as being dumb-fire, and so you have no case. Anything you heard regarding a dumb-fire mode was from unofficial sources or from practice, and not agreed to by SoE at the time that you bought the weapon that it was going to remain that way. Or even if it was intended.

No, you're just upset because the launcher which allowed you to engage air threats reliably while also engaging MAX units, infantry, and armor with a greater degree of effectiveness than the stock launcher is no longer a fix-all solution to your entire target envelope.

I re-conclude: People like you who have no concept of personal responsibility, accountability, or fairness make me sick. Take your buff to your AA launcher, which you bought under the advertised role of being a functioning AA launcher, and be happy.

Please take a screenshot of the item stating that it has a dumb fire mode. It says single shot lockon, nothing is mentioned of dumb fire.

When you try before you buy a weapon you have to understand that they will be changed to accommodate the communites needs. Even you realize this but it seems your thinking is limited to "balance everyone else but don't touch my setup". The role filled by the item is the same as it was before.

1. dont tell me what I am or am not thinking, unless you profess to by psychic...

2. I do have a case, all goods have to meet reasonable expectations, dont put all your faith in written contracts, that is not necessary.

3. I have obtained refunds in similar situations and I am not afraid to pursue my rights. You can choose to just accept it, and thats your choice. personally I prefer to stand up for myself and exercise my rights. The ball is in SOEs court now to see what their response is, and I shall consider how to pursue this once I have received their response.

I have understanding of responsibility and accountability, indeed that is the whole basis for my stance on this issue.

I'm not telling you what you were thinking. I'm telling you what you agreed to when you bought the in-game item. You can think you saw 'dumb fire' all you want in the description. The fact of the matter is that you didn't, you just made a presumption and it ended up being incorrect. So now you're mad and rather than be an adult about it, you're crusading over something stupid.

You don't, though. See above. You can say something's true all you want, but that doesn't make it true. You bought an item for which dumb fire was never an advertised feature for, and then you attempted to bring the law into it, thinking that will get you your money back. Now that people who actually do have a modicum of understanding of law and contracts are telling you otherwise, you're flustered.

I bet.

I chose to be half-way-intelligent with my money, read what I am agreeing to, and not act like a spoiled brat when things don't go my way. But hey, if that's how you roll, go for it.

Responsibility and accountability have absolutely nothing to do with your stance on the issue, I assure you; but you know that already.

You obviously have no idea of how UK consumer rights works, thats ok, most people in the UK dont either, they swallow that "caveat emptor" ******** and so on. Actually we have very good consumer rights, between the sale of goods act and the distance selling regulations its actually loaded towards the consumer rather than the seller.

But its rarely an issue, most companies just process the refund, esp in cases like this where the buyer gets refunded in what es effectively vouchers that can only be spent on products the company sells, they cant risk it going further and getting a judgement against them and setting a precedent. Most people, yourself included i suspect, think that the little guy has no chance against the larger companies, when in fact its the opposite, so long as the little guy is prepared to take action. Its a small loss for me if I lose, its a massive loss for them if they lose, and a significant expense even if they win. so its much easier just to settle. All that means is that I get what I want, whilst you, who is afraid to even ask, get nothing.

So please, carry on being an ignornant fan boy. All you do is make it easier for those of use willing to stand up for ourselves get a satisfactory outcome.

IDK about giving money back, but what would you say to them giving you around 500 certs or so?

I'd prefer my station cash, but if its the equiv of what I paid for the weapon, I'd accept it I suppose.

I'll tell you this right now - any screenshot you post right now from in game is irrelevant. When I purchased the item in game I will assure you it said "Dumb Fire" as a specified mode. They have changed it since. That's their right but those of who purchased it will always know the truth.

We dont really have to prove this. We're not going to take it to court, but we'll always know they shafted us.